Ansar.org states:
The second isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas t is also documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh. It runs through ad-Dahhak ibMuzahim from Ibn ‘Abbas. The weak point in this isnad lies in the fact that ad-Dahhak never met Ibn ‘Abbas, leave alone narrate from him. (See Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71)
In the book al-Jarh wat-Ta’dil by Ibn Abi Hatim ar-Razi there is a narration which throws some light upon the link “ad-Dahhak—Ibn ‘Abbas” . Ibn Abi Hatim narrates with an authentic isnad from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Maysarah that he asked ad-Dahhak: “Did you personally hear anything from Ibn ‘Abbas?” Ad-Dahhak replied in the negative. ‘Abd al-Malik then asked him: “So this which you narrate (from him), from whom did you take it?” Ad-Dahhak replied: “From this one and that one.” (Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wat-Ta’dil vol. 4 tarjamah no. 2024)This shows that ad-Dahhak did not exercise great care about the persons from whom he received the material he later transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbas. Having been a contemporary of Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi, it is not at all improbable that he might have heard the story of the beggar from him.
To use tems associated with guesswork, namely ‘not improbable’ and ‘might have heard’ cannot be submitted as proof in a debate. We will inshallah demostrate later how non contact between a Sahaba and Tabieen does not render a narration void.
Ansar.org states:
Besides the previously discussed narrations from Sahabah, the sources provide us with reports from four of the Tabi’in in which mention is made of the incident of the beggar. Below we discuss these four reports.
Before actually looking at them we need to take cognisance of the following principle: Narrations such as these, which terminate at the Tabi’in, but speak of incidents which allegedly happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam must be treated with care. The reason for that is that the Tabi’i who narrates something which he claims happened during the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam did not actually witness the incident. The only way he could have knowledge of it is by someone informing him.
The crucial question is: Who is his informant? To some people the logical answer to this question is that the Tabi’in were informed by the Sahabah, for the simple reason that the Tabi’in were the students of the Sahabah.
However, this an oversimplification. It is a fact that the Tabi’in were informed of incidents from the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam by their teachers the Sahabah. But it is equally true that the phenomenon of hadith forgery made its appearance during that same early stage, when the adherents of the various unorthodox sectarian groupings, like the Khawarij and the extremist Shi’ah were seeking to legitimate their doctrines by bringing into circulation hadith material which they projected back to the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. Traditions of this kind are then later taken up by unsuspecting orthodox narrators who transmit it, often without naming of their sources.
The net objective behind this Nasibi argument is that simple Sunni audience reject any Hadeeth that stops at a Tabieen, the absence of a Sahaba in the chain renders the narration void. If this is the Ansar.Org approach then why did they rely on a narration that stops at a Tabieen as proof in their article ‘The Marriage of umm kulthum daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to ‘Umar ibn Alkhatab ‘ They advance a tradition that stops at Imam Muhammad al Baqir [as]:
Ansar.org states:
This is recorded by Ibn Sa’d in his work at-Tabaqat al-Kubra (vol. 8 p. 338, ed. Muhammad ‘Ab al-Qadir ‘Ata, Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1990) as follows:
I was informed by Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi, who reports on the authority of Ja’far ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad al-Baqir]-
that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab asked ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib for the hand of Umm Kulthum in marriage. ‘Ali said, “I had kept my daughters for the sons of Ja’far.” ‘Umar said, “Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah, there is no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve through her good companionship that which I seek to achieve.” ‘Ali said, “I have done so.”
Then ‘Umar came to the Muhajirun between the grave [of Rasulullah r ] and the pulpit. They-’Ali, ‘Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and ‘Abd ar-Rahman-used to sit there, and whenever a matter used to arrive from the frontiers, ‘Umar used to come to them there and consult with them. He came to them and said, “Congratulate me.” They congratulated him, and asked, “With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir al-Mu’minin?” He replied, “With the daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
Then he related to them that the Nabi r said, “Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association.” ['Umar said,] “I have had the companionship of Rasulullah r ; I would like also to have this [kinship].”
The Ahl’ul Sunnah would grade Imam Baqir [as] among Taba Tabiyeen (3rd generation from the generation of Sahaba). The chain stops at him, and (according to Ansar.org’s logic) we have no means of ascertaining the truth as we have no direct eye witnesses in the chain. This being the case ‘why’ have they sought to rely on a chain that stops at a Taba Tabiyee to prove an event? Why does this rule suddenly become applicable when the issue is discussing the merits of Maula ‘Ali [as] but is ignored when discussing the rank of Umar? Is this not a clear example of double standards?
Ansar.org states:
Salamah ibn Kuhayl was a Tabi’i from Kufah who had met none of the Sahabah except Jundub ibn ‘Abdillah and Abu Juhayfah. (‘Ali ibn al-Madini, Kitab al-’Ilal, cited by Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma’ruf in a footnote to Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 11 p. 317) The vast majority of his teachers were of the elder and middle generation of the Tabi’in. His saying was also recorded in the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim from where it was reproduced and preserved by Ibn Kathir. (vol. 2 p. 71) He mentions the incident of the beggar as the cause of revelation for this verse.
The very fact that Salamah had met the Sahaba Jundub and Abu Juhayfah is good enough – since his contact with the Sahaba is proven. In addition to this, he attained knowledge from the elder Tabiyeen who would have no doubt met and attained knowledge from the Sahaba.
The Nawasib of Ansar.org tried their best to discard the statements of Tabayeen because their contact with the Sahaba is unproven, but we shall remind them that according to the teachings of their school, the statements of Tabyeen are acceptable particularly in Tafseers because they obtained their knowledge from Sahaba who had witnessed such incidents. We read in Tafseer Ta’alabi, Volume 1 page 81:
“The majority of commentators deem it permissible to obtain the statements of Tabyeen because they obtained them from the Sahaba”
We read in an esteemed Salafi work ‘Fatawa ibn Jebrin’ Volume 68 page 25:
‘This is the method of Imam Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) that if he located a hadith in a book, he didn’t pay attention to the others, if he didn’t find a hadith but he found narration (Athar) from Sahaba, he held that they (the Sahaba) didn’t disagree about it, if the Sahaba disagreed, he would take the statement of the group that incorporated one of the two Sheikhs Abu Bakr and Umar or anyone among the caliphs, if he didn’t find anything from the Sahaba he would turn to the statements of Tabyeen because they were the students of the Sahaba, if he didn’t find something from them then he would exercise ijtihad and issue a fatwa according to his ijtihad’
We read in “Mou’asoa Fqhya” by Kuwaiti government, Volume 13 page 90:
“It is narrated from Imam Ahmad that it is obligatory to refer to the statements of Tabyeen in Tafseer and other things”
We read in “Muqadima fi Usool al-Tafseer” by ibn Taymia, page 11:
“Tabyeen obtained Tafseer from the Sahaba like they obtained Sunnah from them”
On page 44 we read:
“If they didn’t find the Tafseer in the Quran, Sunnah or from Sahaba then many of the Imams refer to the statements of Tabyeen”.
If the Sahaba link between a successor (i.e. Tabayee) and Prophet Muhammad [s] is missing, the hadith is called mursal, e.g., when a Tabayee says, “The Prophet said …” . Such form of hadith also becomes acceptable to our opponents provided i.e. they felt like it and the report is narrated by authentic Tabayee. Imam of Wahabies Nasiruddin Al-Baani stated n ‘Al-Maseh ala al-Jurabain’ page 29:
“The disconnected (chain) of the Thiqah is not like the others, therefore the Mursal of the Thiqah is accepted”
We read in ‘Qurat al-Ayn’ by al-Hattab al-Ru’aini, page 58:
“Malik, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad (bin Hanbal) and group of scholars said that Mursal is Huja, because the Thiqah do not narrate the tradition without mentioning the narrator unless they are sure that the narrator is just”
Allamah Syed Mahmood Alusi al-Baghdadi (d. 1270 H) states in Tafseer Ruh al-Ma’ani Volume 9 page 151:
“Mursal is Huja according us and the majority of the scholars”
We read in ‘Hashyat al-Sindi’ by Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdulhadi al-Sindi (d. 1138 H), Volume 1 page 104:
“Mursal is Huja according to the majority”
Allamah Badruddin al-Aini records in ‘Umdat al-Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari’ Volume 11 page 302:
“The mursal is Huja according to us”
Whilst the Nawasib belonging to Ansar.org cited some chains and tried to prove them weak, they did not mention the various other chains amongst which we evidenced two of them as authentic. The amusing thing is, even if Ansar.org try their best and prove every chain as weak, according to the science of traditions found in their school the incident would still be considered authentic because a weak incident narrated with multiple chains is deemed true according to them. Allamah Abdul Wahab Sherani records in “Rudud Ulema al-Muslimin” page 66:
“The majority of hadith scholars rely on the weak hadith if it carries multiple chains and they attributed it as Sahih or Hasan”
Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H) records in “Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad” Volume 1 page 254:
“The traditions support one other, because weak traditions with multiple chains constitute strength, as is known from Ilm hadith (science of hadith).”
Even the four Sunni Imams at some points accepted weak hadith. We read in ‘Rad Etibar al-Jame al-Saghir’ by Abdullah al-Ghemari, page 26:
“The four imams worked with weak hadith in many laws.”
We can clearly see that ibn Kathir in his book ‘al-Bedaya wa al-Nehaya’ Volume 7 page 223 talked about Uthman’s conversion to Islam through Abu Bakar, he narrated a weak narration and built the biography of Uthman on its basis, and Ibn Kathir raised no objection, even though it was weak, just because it evidenced the (supposed) merit of Abu Bakar but when it comes to the merits of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] he directly identifies faults in the chains. Also, the version of the tradition of the two weighty things ( the book of Allah and Sunnah) is very weak but still Nawasib repeat it daily. Allamah Hassan al-Saqqaf said in his book ‘Sahih Sharh Aqida Tahawia’ pahge 178:
“But the hadith ( I’m leaving among you what if you hold on, you will never go astray after me, the book of Allah and my Sunnah ) is a fabricated hadith as I proved in my book ‘Sahih Sifat Salat al-Nabi’ page 289 and I mentioned all of the chains.”
Ansar.org states:
However, aside from asking questions about who Salamah’s source for this information could have been, it is of particular interest to us to note that according to the Shi’i rijal critics, Salamah ibn Kuhayl was persona non grata. Abu ‘Amr al-Kashshi, the prime rijal critic of the Shi’ah, narrates from the 5th Imam Muhammad al-Baqir that Salamah ibn Kuhayl, amongst others, was responsible for misleading alot of people, and that he is of those about whom Allah has said in the Qur’an: There are some people who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” but (in reality) they do not believe. (Rijal al-Kashshi, cited in al-Ardabili, Jami’ ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 373)
With their Imam himself having condemned Salamah ibn Kuhayl as a hypocrite who is guilty of leading people away from the truth, we fail to understand how the Shi’ah can venture to make an argument out of his statement.
The crux of Sunni / Shi’a polemics is to prove an argument from the text of your opponents. Our view of this narrator bears no relevance to this argument. In fact the argument advanced by those condemned by the Imam [as] is much more powerful, since we can advance the fact that even those that were adverse to Shiasm believed that the verse descended in honour of Maula ‘Ali [as]. When we cited Sunni traditions wherein Sahaba such as Mu’awiyah, Umar and Ayesha narrate the rank of Maula ‘Ali, we are actually showing that even our Imams harshest critics could not deny his merits. Exactly the same argument can be advanced here. This in many ways strengthens our argument rather than weakens it, after all had Salamah ibn Kuhayl been graded a Shi’a this would have constituted automatic grounds for al Khider to reject the narration.
One very interesting comment was advanced by Ansar.org when rejecting the narration of Salamah ibn Kuhayl.
Ansar.org states:
Since this is once again a report by a person who did not actually witness the incident, a similar line of reasoning is applicable to it as to the previous case.
At another point the author states:
As-Suddi did not personally witness the incident, nor was he ever in contact with anyone who could have witnessed it. His informant therefore had to be another person. He himself does not state the name of his informant, nor of the eye witness from who the informant received the report.
The general failure of all of these persons— ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim, Salamah ibn Kuhayl and as-Suddi— to mention the names of their sources points strongly to the fact that the whole incident was nothing more than hearsay, more of a rumour than an authenticated report. It was brought into circulation by an unscrupulous person whose identity has remained a mystery. Thereafter it was circulated by word of mouth, with some commentator mentioning the incident but refraining from naming their sources, and other less scrupulous persons projecting it right back to the Sahabah. Not a single one of the various chains of narrations fulifil the requirements of authenticity.
This would on the face of it seem perfectly acceptable if this was a rule of Hadeeth authenticity by the Ahl’ul Sunnah – but it is not and we shall cite some examples of ‘Sahih’ narrations from esteemed Sunni text wherein the narrators were not present (in fact not even born) at the time.
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0037:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said to his uncle at the time of his death: Make a profession of it that there is no god but Allah and I will bear testimony (of your being a Muslim) on the Day of judgment. But he (Abu Talib) refused to do so. Then Allah revealed this verse:
“Verily thou canst not guide to the right path whom thou lovest. And it is Allah Who guideth whom He will and He knoweth best who are the guided” (xxviii. 56).
It is unanimous that Abu Hurayrah wasn’t even in Hijaz at that time, let alone beside the death-bed of Hazrat Abu Talib [as]. So how is it that he is speaking as though everything was happening before his eyes?
We read in Sahih Muslim ‘The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)’ Book 001, Number 0399:
Abu Huraira reported: When this verse was revealed:” And warn thy nearest kindred (al-Qur’an, xxvi. 214), the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) called the Quraish; so they gathered and he gave them a general warning. Then he made a particular (reference to certain tribes) and said: O sons of Ka’b b. Luwayy, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O sons of Murra b. Ka’b, rescue yourselves from the Fire: O sons of Abd Shams, rescue yourselves from the Fire; 0 sons of Abd Manaf rescue yourselves from the Fire; O sons of Hashim, rescue yourselves from the Fire; 0 sons of Abd al-Muttalib, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O Fatimah, rescue thyself from the Fire, for I have no power (to protect you) from Allah in anything except this that I would sustain relationship with you.
We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 039, Number 6718:
Abu Huraira reported that Abu Jahl asked (people) whether Muhammad placed his face (on the ground) in their presence. It was said to him: Yes. He said: By Lit and Uzza. If I were to see him do that, I would trample his neck, or I would beamear his face with dust. He came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as he was engaged in prayer and thought of trampling his neck (and the people say) that he came near him but turned upon his heels and tried to repulse something with his hands. It was said to him: What is the matter with you? He said: There is between me and him a ditch of fire and terror and wings. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: If he were to come near me the angels would have torn him to pieces. Then Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this verse- (the narrator) said: We do not know whether it is the hadith transmitted by Abu Huraira or something conveyed to him from another source:” Nay, man is surely inordinate, because he looks upon himself as self-sufficient. Surely to thy Lord is the return. Hast thou seen him who forbids a servant when he prays? Seest thou if he is on the right way, or enjoins observance of piety? Seest thou if he [Abu Jah]] denies and turns away? Knowest he not that Allah sees? Nay. if he desists not, We will seize him by the forelock-a lying, sinful forelock. Then let him summon his council. We will summon the guards of the Hell. Nay! Obey not thou him” (Icvi. 6-19). (Rather prostrate thyself.) Ubaidullah made this addition: It was after this that (prostration) was enjoined upon and Ibn Abd al-Ala made this addition that by Nadia he meant his people.
This is an event early in the Prophet’s [s] mission, when Abu Jahl and the Prophet [s] had such encounters. Abu Hurayrah was again not witness to this, but still acts as the witness. Furthermore the narrator also expresses his confusion what part is the hadeeth and what part is something else. Despite this, there is no objection to this narration, it is graded as Saheeh.
We read in Mustadrak Al-Hakim, Volume 4, page 48:
Abu Hurayrah narrated: I entered upon Ruqayyah the daughter of the Prophet [s] the wife of Uthman, and in her hand was a comb. She said: The Prophet [s] had just left from here a moment ago. I combed his hair. He said to me: “How do you find Abu Abdillah (Uthman)?” I said: “Good.” He said: “Honour him, as he is most in similitude to me in akhlaq.”
Al-Hakim comments: This hadeeth is sahih in isnad, but doubtful in matan, as Ruqayyah died in the third year of Hijrah at the time of the victory in Badr, and Abu Hurayrah became Muslim after the victory of Khaybar, Allah knows best, and I have mentioned it with another isnad.
Then Al-Hakim gives the same hadeeth with another isnad, probably because one of Uthman’s decendants was in the first isnad and people may doubt the isnad which is sahih, although the actual content of the hadeeth (matan) perplexes his scholarly mind. So Al-Hakim proves that the isnad all the way to Abu Hurayrah was sahih, and Abu Hurayrah clearly claims that he entered into her house. How is that so? How is this explained within the boundaries of metaphysics and quantum physics? Was this a miracle of Abu Hurayrah? Despite this, no objections are raised to this matter, the word of Abu Hurraira is deemed Saheeh.
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 469:
Narrates Ibn Sirin: Abu Huraira said,”Allah’s Apostle led us in one of the two ‘Isha’ prayers (Abu Huraira named that prayer but I forgot it).” Abu Huraira added, “He prayed two Rakat and then finished the prayer with Tasllm. He stood up near a piece of wood Lying across the mosque and leaned on it in such a way as if he was angry. Then he put his right hand over the left and clasped his hands by interlacing his fingers and then put his J right cheek on the back of his left hand. The people who were in haste left the mosque through its gates. They wondered whether the prayer was reduced. And amongst them were Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but they hesitated to ask the Prophet. A long-handed man called Dhul-Yadain asked the Prophet, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Have you; forgotten or has the prayer been reduced?’ The Prophet replied, ‘I have neither forgotten nor has the prayer been reduced’ The Prophet added, ‘Is what Dhul Yadain has said true?’ They (the people) said, ‘Yes, it is true.’ The Prophet stood up again and led the prayer, completing the remaining prayer, forgotten by him, and performed Talsrm, and then said, ‘Allahu Akbar.’ And then he did a prostration as he used to prostrate or longer than that. He then raised his head saying, ‘Allahu Akbar; he then again said, ‘Allahu Akbar’, and prostrated as he used to prostrate or longer than that. Then he raised his head and said, ‘Allahu Akbar.’ ” (The sub narrator added, “I think that they asked (Ibn Sirin) whether the Prophet completed the prayer with Taslim. He replied, “I heard that ‘Imran bin Husain had said, ‘Then he (the Prophet) did Taslim.”)
Abu Hurayrah clearly says that he was part of the prayers behind the Prophet [s] on this occasion when the Prophet [s] supposedly forgot how many rakats he prayed. At the same time, Dhul-Yadain was also present, who was martyred in the battle of Badr. This must mean that this occasion occurred before the battle of Badr, when Abu Hurayrah had not even met the Prophet [s] yet. Despite this clear error, the tradition has been graded as Saheeh by Muhammad Ismail Bukhari.
We read in Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 5, Book 59, Number 541:
Narrated Abu Huraira: When we conquered Khaibar, we gained neither gold nor silver as booty, but we gained cows, camels, goods and gardens. Then we departed with Allah’s Apostle to the valley of Al-Qira, and at that time Allah’s Apostle had a slave called Mid’am who had been presented to him by one of Banu Ad-Dibbab. While the slave was dismounting the saddle of Allah’s Apostle an arrow the thrower of which was unknown, came and hit him. The people said, “Congratulations to him for the martyrdom.” Allah’s Apostle said, “No, by Him in Whose Hand my soul is, the sheet (of cloth) which he had taken (illegally) on the day of Khaibar from the booty before the distribution of the booty, has become a flame of Fire burning him.” On hearing that, a man brought one or two leather straps of shoes to the Prophet and said, “These are things I took (illegally).” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “This is a strap, or these are two straps of Fire.”
Here Abu Hurayrah places himself in the battle of Khaibar, in which he had absolutely no role in. He first came to Madinah when the Prophet [s] and his army were out for the battle of Khaibar, so he stayed behind and lived in the mosques. If Nawasib try to offer some thwarped excuse then this tradition makes his personal eye witness testimony even more clear:
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 515:
Narrated Abu Huraira: We witnessed (the battle of) Khaibar. Allah’s Apostle said about one of those who were with him and who claimed to be a Muslim. “This (man) is from the dwellers of the Hell-Fire.” When the battle started, that fellow fought so violently and bravely that he received plenty of wounds. Some of the people were about to doubt (the Prophet’s statement), but the man, feeling the pain of his wounds, put his hand into his quiver and took out of it, some arrows with which he slaughtered himself (i.e. committed suicide). Then some men amongst the Muslims came hurriedly and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Allah has made your statement true so-and-so has committed suicide. “The Prophet said, “O so-and-so! Get up and make an announcement that none but a believer will enter Paradise and that Allah may support the religion with an unchaste (evil) wicked man.
Now he says explicitly “we witnessed the battle of Khaibar. This is false testimony and Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, the greatest muhaddith of Ahlus-Sunnah, still graded the tradition as Saheeh.
We read the following tradition in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 619:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Angel of Death was sent to Moses when he came to Moses, Moses slapped him on the eye. The angel returned to his Lord and said, “You have sent me to a Slave who does not want to die.” Allah said, “Return to him and tell him to put his hand on the back of an ox and for every hair that will come under it, he will be granted one year of life.” Moses said, “O Lord! What will happen after that?” Allah replied, “Then death.” Moses said, “Let it come now.” Moses then requested Allah to let him die close to the Sacred Land so much so that he would be at a distance of a stone’s throw from it.” Abu Huraira added, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘If I were there, I would show you his grave below the red sand hill on the side of the road.”
We read the following tradition in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 226:
Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari used to lay great stress on the question of urination and he used to say,“If anyone from Bani Israel happened to soil his clothes with urine, he used to cut that portion away.” Hearing that, Hudhaifa said to Abu Wail, “I wish he (Abu Musa) didn’t (lay great stress on that matter).” Hudhaifa added, “Allah’s Apostle went to the dumps of some people and urinated while standing.”
We read in Sahih Muslim (Kitab al Iman) Book 001, Number 0401:
It is narrated on the authority of ‘A’isha that when this verse was revealed:” And warn thy nearest kindred,” the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up on Safa’ and said: O Fatima, daughter of Muhammad. O Safiya, daughter of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, O sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib. I have nothing which can avail you against Allah; you may ask me what you want of my worldly belongings.
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Zaad al Maad, Volume 3 page 54, Dhikr Miraaj:
Ibn Ishaq narrated that Ayesha and Mu’awiya said: ‘The ‘Isra’ was spiritual, His [s] body didn’t disappear. And same has been narrated the from al-Hassan al-Basri.
The Mir’aj occurred before the Hijrah in Makka, this was a time when Ansar.Org’s Imam Mu’awiya was a Kaafir, and Ayesha was a mere child, she was unmarried and was in her father’s home, and had never seen the bed of Rasulullah (s).
We have cited several examples of Hadeeth that have been accepted by the Ahle Sunnah even though none of these individuals were direct witnesses to the events. If these Nawasib accept this type of secondary evidence as acceptable, and have graded such Hadeeth as Sahih, then why is the same principle not applied when it comes to narrating the rank of Maula ‘Ali [as]?
Ansar.org states:
The above four narrations are not the only ones that have come down to us from the Tabi’in. They are contradicted by another, much better known narration that has reached us from a person no less in status that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, who is regarded by the Shi’ah as their 5th Imam. This narration is documented in at-Tabari’s Tafsir (vol. 6 p. 186). It runs as follows:
Hannad [ibn Sari]— ‘Abdah [ibn Sulayman]— ‘Abd al-Malik [ibn Abi Sulayman]— Abu Ja’far [i.e. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir]:
‘Abd al-Malik says: I asked Abu Ja’far about the verse, “Your wali is only Allah, His Messenger and those who believe, who establish salah and give zakah, and they bow down.” We asked: “Who is meant by those who believe?” He said: “Those who believe.” We said: “A report reached us that that this verse was revealed in connection with ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.” He said: “Ali is one of those who believe.”This narration shows that the incident of the beggar had become quite popular, despite the fact that none of its narrators is able to produce a chain of narrators that is free from serious defects. It had become so popular, in fact, that ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Sulayman— who is recognised by the Shi’ah as a Tabi’i who narrates from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (see al-Ardabili, Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 519 no. 4187)— thought to refer the matter to the Imam himself. The Imam made it clear to him that the verse refers to all Believers in general. When told about the claim that it refers specifically to Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu, the Imam makes is clear that Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu is neither the specific subject of the verse, nor is he excluded from it, since he too, is a believer amongst the Believers. He mentions nothing at all in confirmation of the incident of the beggar.
To the Shi’i mind, so used to thinking of the illustrious members of the Ahl al-Bayt in the despicable terms of taqiyyah, the Imam might well have been “covering up the truth”. But to any person who truly loves and respects the Family of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam this is an honest and straightforward answer. Only an anxious and prejudiced mind would care to read meaning into it that is not there.
Tafseer Tabari is an esteemed Sunni source; hence this source cannot be advanced as proof to convince the Shi’a.
Ansar.org should not make any attempt to suggest that Imam Baqar [as] did not believe that the verse 5:55 was revealed for Ali bin Abi Talib [as] by using a Sunni source because according to Shia sources, it is clear that the verse refers to Maula Ali bin Abi Talib [as]:
And the following Shia sources testify to the incident of ring:
Is it not amusing that the single tradition is used to in effect annul a tradition that has been narrated by so many other chains? Why have Ansar.Org chosen to only focus their efforts on those seven chains with defects and ignore the scores of other chains that Ibn Hanbal and Tabarani relied on, is every single one of them defective?
Lets for arguments sake accept that the narration is correct. Why would it be despicable if we argued that our Imam (as) practised taqiyya? The Imams from Ahl’ul bayt [as] did not live the grand lavish lifestyles of the Sunni State Imams. They lived through an era of oppression / enmity towards them. Their every movement was being watched by the Sunni State. The major spilt between the Sunni / Shi’a schools was on Imamate. If the Imam [as] was to publicly confirm that the verse descended for Maula ‘Ali [as] he would have been apprehended and his attempts to convey this knowledge to his students would have been stopped in its tracks. If our Imam [as] said such a thing then he did so due to the situation / audience who were sitting in his midst at the time. The Imam [as] gave a diplomatic response to ensure that the Sunni state took no punitive steps against him. Despite this, our Imam [as] gave a response that indirectly inferred that Maula ‘Ali [as] was the Wali of believers, because we have a narration from Ibn Abbas stating that:
“Allah did not reveal an Ayah beginning O you who believe..’ but that Ali is its Amir and its eminence. Allah reproached the companions of Muhammad in more then one place but he never mentioned ‘Ali but with approval”.